If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Debian 7.0 GNU/Linux vs. GNU/kFreeBSD Benchmarks

06-10-2013, 03:20 AM

Phoronix: Debian 7.0 GNU/Linux vs. GNU/kFreeBSD Benchmarks

Up this morning are benchmarks comparing the performance of Debian GNU/Linux 7.0 to Debian GNU/kFreeBSD 7.0, the version of the Debian operating system that ships the GNU user-land but replaces the Linux kernel from that of FreeBSD 9.0...

Now, given that FreeBSD in general is safer and more stable, no one should really care.

In your dreams. Linux is used in the most demanding workloads not BSD. Linux is also more safe and provides more security mechanisms. BSD is worse in every case, it seems. One should ask a question: why do they even care to provide kfreebsd kernel? It's so typical for bsd fanboys and trolls: bsd is faster! Benchmarks show it's not. So, bsd is more safe! Reality show it's not. So, it must be more stable! Again, reality show it's not. The last two things cannot be proven easily, but if it was more safe and stable it would be used in the most demanding workloads and environments where security is a priority. Nothing like this has place.

Comment

My Kernel is better than your Kernel!. But I guess it's natural for Cousins to fight. When I switched from Windows last year I came an arms length away from installing PC-BSD, I liked the looks of it and the ease of installing Software via the PBIs. Further research lead me to believe that BSD lacked in Hardware support and Mainstream Software like Games; Torchlight for instance.

In the end I chose Xubuntu, been happy ever since. If push came to shove, I wouldn't let any kind of Pride stand in the way of me and switching to BSD. It would need to be something drastic, such as Microsoft buying all rights to the Linux Kernel, or something along those lines; but I think the posers at omgubuntu wouldn't mind that at all.

That's actually pretty cool; GNU/kFreeBSD as a whole has had almost no work done to optimize for speed yet. Some tools that would help with this have not been packaged yet.

The default plain UFS filesystem operates in the safest possible mode, without write cache or journalling and that could be a major bottleneck on slower disks. Maybe that's why it performed better here, on an SSD. This is likely to change soon to UFS+softupdates or UFS+J, and should be an easy performance boost for the next release.

Comment

My Kernel is better than your Kernel!. But I guess it's natural for Cousins to fight. When I switched from Windows last year I came an arms length away from installing PC-BSD, I liked the looks of it and the ease of installing Software via the PBIs. Further research lead me to believe that BSD lacked in Hardware support and Mainstream Software like Games; Torchlight for instance.

In the end I chose Xubuntu, been happy ever since. If push came to shove, I wouldn't let any kind of Pride stand in the way of me and switching to BSD. It would need to be something drastic, such as Microsoft buying all rights to the Linux Kernel, or something along those lines; but I think the posers at omgubuntu wouldn't mind that at all.

Mike, since the rights are spread between thousands of individuals, that would be an enormous undertaking on Microsoft's part. (It's also the reason why the debates over which version of the GPL the Linux kernel uses were pointless. The kernel was always stuck with v2 regardless of how Linus felt about v3.)

Also, even if somehow a single entity managed to acquire the rights to all of the code, or to enough of the code that re-writing the parts they don't control would not be so difficult, that code would still remain licensed under the GPL v2 retroactively. It's only future releases that they could change the license to, and hence close or restrict freedoms. In other words, it'd get forked.